‘Well at least my body is healthy’—a phrase not all can say when staring at their reflection

Many people, including myself, have had days where they stand in front of the mirror and aren't satisfied with their reflection. Perhaps they think their pores are too big, their waist is too large, and their muscles aren’t defined—they just don't like their bodies. When seeking support, many will turn to the advice of therapists, life coaches, and influencers and hear phrases such as, “You may not love the way your body looks, and that is OK—at least it is healthy!" and, “Honour your body because she keeps you functioning and does amazing things for you." or, "As long as you are healthy, you’ll eventually like what you see in the mirror; it just takes time." While most people can find encouragement in these mantras, what such phrases fail to account for are the perspectives of those with chronic conditions. What about the people whose bodies are failing or fighting them on a daily basis? Can they say those mantras when, to them, such perspectives just aren't true?

Image credit: Unsplash

From experience, I can tell you these affirmations don't always work. If anything, they can sometimes make things worse and leave me more frustrated with my body. My body is not healthy, and I deal with multiple chronic illnesses every day. I am just one of many who cannot repeat positive mantras in the mirror when dealing with chronic illnesses, and I've learned that that's ok. However, it has motivated me to explore current research and see what others who share my perspective are doing to cope.

“I am just one of many who cannot repeat positive mantras in the mirror when dealing with chronic illnesses, and I’ve learned that that’s ok.”

People with serious health conditions form a sizable demographic in the United Kingdom (UK). In 2019, approximately 18.8 million people over the age of 16 self-reported as having at least one long-term health condition. Among the younger populace, one quarter of 11–15 year-olds reported having a disability or chronic illness, while among 10–24 year-olds, one in ten felt that disabilities impacted their everyday activities. As for older members of society, it is estimated that by 2035, two thirds of adults over 65 are likely to have multi-morbidities. If you take a step back, that is about one in every four people in the UK who have something going on, visible or hidden, that seriously impacts their health. So, how do we—as people dealing with chronic illness(es)— try to address issues of body image? Am I the only one getting frustrated with my body, and tired of hearing, “oh well, at least your body is healthy”?

While the verdict is still out on body-positivity mantras, there is research available that explores the relationship between body image and chronic illness. Now, I want to be clear that just because someone has a chronic illness, or indeed illnesses, doesn’t mean they cannot love their body. I cannot speak for all, but I know that for many people in the chronic illness community it can feel harder to achieve body acceptance when they cannot rely on ‘at least’ being healthy. The World Health Organization found that the self-image and ego development of adolescents with chronic health conditions can be negatively affected, especially for those who score highly in verbal intelligence tests and have more severe diseases. Furthermore, the demands of chronic illnesses or disabilities, such as using body braces or managing medication, can negatively impact self-image. Virginia Quick builds on these findings by highlighting how chronic illness can place people at a greater risk of negative body image compared to their healthy peers, especially with illnesses that lead to weight fluctuation.

Image credit: Unsplash

“Chronic illness can place people at a greater risk of negative body image compared to their healthy peers.”

Although research on body image often focuses on young people, those of all ages can experience negative views of themselves. Young adults with bowel conditions recall being teased about their bodies, a possible contributor to their depression and anxiety. For people over 65, chronic illness can lead to a redefinition of self-concept that “involves the negotiation of identity trade-off as individuals confront their physical losses, [and] change their future goals.” This process plays out for people on medications, such as corticosteroids or insulin, that can alter the body and consequently affect body image. This was the case for me when I was going on and off various medications that caused visible puffiness and weight fluctuations; I definitely found myself looking at my body differently in the mirror. When such medications are needed to keep a patient stable, even if they try their hardest, those that take them may still find it hard to meet conventional standards of beauty. The appearance of research on body image and chronic illness is encouraging and I am hopeful that there will be more to come.

“Unlike the body positivity movement, which promotes the idea that everyone is beautiful in their own way, body neutrality focuses on accepting your body for how it currently is.”

I know I’m not the only person in England feeling distressed about my body image. Research aside, I wanted to see what others are doing to soothe their feelings and I stumbled upon the body neutrality movement. I learned that body neutrality can be a great asset in helping those with a negative body image, including those whose negative self-view intertwines with their chronic illness. Unlike the body positivity movement, which promotes the idea that everyone is beautiful in their own way, body neutrality focuses on accepting your body for how it currently is. Crystal Raypole describes it as “taking a neutral perspective towards your body … [and] moving away from the idea that you have to cultivate a love for your body or make an effort to love it every day.” This mindset can be especially useful for people living with chronic illnesses—sometimes you may not love your body and you shouldn’t feel shame about that. Raypole goes on to say that body neutrality is about respecting your body even if you don’t love it, and practising mindfulness as a response to how your body is feeling. Although the idea of body neutrality has been around for a long time, it’s something that I’ve only recently introduced to help combat the self-image issues related to my chronic illnesses. I’ve started to create my own mantras and see body image through a different lens. Plus, I’ve come to understand that whilst it might not feel like it sometimes, many people, chronically ill or not, struggle with body image. Overcoming this struggle is an effort that needs to be taken one day at a time.

Insects—can we stomach them?

Insects are gaining attention as an alternative source of protein in the United States (US), Canada, and various countries within Europe. With a dry-weight protein level of 60%, insects are deemed by the Food and Agriculture Organization to be one of the most sustainable alternatives to animal-sourced protein. As global populations continue to grow, it is estimated that a 70% increase in agricultural production worldwide is necessary to feed populations around the world. This demand, coupled with the rising cost and consumption of animal protein, is both a strain on the environment and an exacerbation of existing food insecurity levels. With a much lower cost, strain, and impact on our environment, insects could be our solution.

Image credit: Unsplash

“With a much lower cost, strain, and impact on our environment, insects could be our solution.”

The consumption of animal-sourced protein is deeply embedded in Western culture through symbolic ties to wealth and, since the twentieth century rise of meat-production technology, a reputation for optimal nutritional benefit. The idealisation of animal-sourced protein, and consequential rejection of insect-based protein, can be traced to early European colonialism. European colonisers were introduced to the idea of insects as a food staple; however, rather than accept such alternative food practices, they took them as grounds to denounce the local populations. Colonialism served to establish social hierarchies that propagated the denigration of cultures who ate insects simply because the practices were different from those of the colonisers. This stigmatisation of insect consumption contributes to the common rejection of insects as food today.

“The idealisation of animal-sourced protein, and consequential rejection of insect-based protein, can be traced to early European colonialism.”

African and Asian cultures have long incorporated insects into their diets and continue to do so: indigenous communities like the Mofu in Cameroon and Bushmen in Botswana rely heavily on insects for protein, iron, and vitamin D; and street vendors in Thailand commonly sell insects deep fried on sticks or tossed in spices. Cross-national surveys conducted across 13 countries found large variations in the rejection of insect-based foods, with higher rates noted among older people and those living in Europe, the US, and Australia. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a study comparing the attitudes of Chinese and German participants found greater acceptability of insect-based food, and willingness to consume it, among the Chinese population.

Some of this variation can be attributed to the fact that insects, in general, are more common in populations that live around the tropics. In such climates, insects are a more practical source of food due to greater variety and year-round availability. In more temperate climates, such as the United Kingdom, houses are weatherproofed to accommodate seasonality, shutting out insects and limiting interactions with them. Ecological differences thus serve as an additional barrier to broader adoption of insects as a food source; however, most change is likely to depend on societal acceptance, preference, and cultural shifts. 

Despite research showing that insects are high in protein, nutrients, and essential minerals, many individuals fear the thought of eating insects. Insects are often referred to as pests and are perceived as contaminators of food, which, in combination with childhood experience, parental influence, and societal teaching, cement such presuppositions. Additionally, terms used to refer to insects—such as the French phrase ‘la bestiole’—carry negative connotations. Moreover, as a novel concept in most societies, unfamiliarity with insect consumption can cause hesitation. 

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Sensory stimulation and other hedonic aspects play a distinct role in dictating what is considered appetising—the presentation, advertisement, and texture of a dish is also important in creating a positive meal experience. The presence of visible insect limbs or bodies, and food texture that is slimy or mushy, can trigger revulsion, especially if individuals are relatively new to consuming insects as food. A natural distrust of new foods is one aspect of the omnivore’s dilemma, in which the need to consume new types of food for the sake of nutritional variety conflicts with the fear that foods could be harmful, toxic, or contaminated.

Ultimately, a greater acceptance and consumption of insects as food will only materialise once individuals recognise insects as a viable and sustainable food source. The omnivore’s dilemma remains a significant barrier, but efforts to change mindsets and increase desire for more sustainable food systems could be the key to this issue. Development in the formulation and processing of insects could help to mask their presence in familiar and conventional foods and promote more widespread use. Some examples include the use of insect flours; the addition of insects into processed foods, such as burgers; and the use of familiar flavour profiles in insect-based food products. 

For most people, insects (like meat alternatives) are unlikely to replace animals as the main source of protein. However, arguably environmental benefits would be seen if the majority of the population were to eat insects in place of animal protein for just one day a week. While current demand for the use of insects as food is still low and mostly limited to the livestock industry, there are emerging signs that suggest a slow increase in acceptability. In Canada, locally-produced cricket powder is sold in the nationwide grocery chain Loblaws, and there is a dedicated aisle for insect-based products at certain organic stores in the US, indicating we are closer to incorporating insects into our diet than previously thought. Increasing acceptance and appreciation of the diversification of food sources could foster a pathway to decolonisation of cultural food norms, providing both nutritional benefit and improved sustainability of food systems.

The truth about sunscreen: harmful products and safer alternatives

Summer may be over but, even in rainy England, sun rays can still cause daily skin damage in both light and dark complexions. However, our strongest protector against ultraviolet (UV) radiation may not be on our side. Sunscreen—a ubiquitous public health measure that supposedly prevents malignant melanoma development—is perhaps not as safe for application as once thought, according to recent studies by the Environmental Working Group (EWG). The organisation’s work focuses on compiling scientific research into comprehensible information for the lay consumer—putting knowledge and purchasing power back in the hands of its readers. I have utilised the EWG’s research in order to rate some of the most popular brand-name sunscreens, and recommend alternatives if their ingredients aren’t up to par. All of the information for these rankings was sourced from the EWG’s sunscreen listings, and more detailed reporting can be found on their website. 

Image credit: Unsplash

First, what exactly is the problem with contemporary sunscreens? Unfortunately, sunscreens containing the industry-standard chemicals oxybenzone and homosalate were declared unsafe at current levels by the European Commission. These ingredients were linked to hormonal disruption and can be detected in blood samples up to several weeks after disuse, according to the Food and Drug Administration. These particles break down in the sun, rendering the protective effects of sunscreen void, and they contribute to up to 15% of formula composition. Currently, the recommended level of these chemicals, based on European Commission data, should exceed no more than 2.2% oxybenzone and 1.4% homosalate. Not only are toxic ingredients contributing to the ineffectiveness of sunscreen options, but sun protection factor (SPF) levels are highly unreliable as well. High levels of SPF are often preferred by consumers, as they indicate a stronger level of protection against the sun’s harmful UV rays. However, the SPF level only indicates a product’s ability to protect against UV-B rays and not against other forms of UV rays that are largely responsible for premature aging and cancer. Naturally, when reaching for a product with high SPF, the consumer assumes they are protected from the sun for longer and may forgo more frequent application. Therefore, both the limited protective scope of SPF and a false sense of security are contributing to a lack of effective measures against UV rays and skin deterioration. The two issues highlighted here are only a few of the many problems associated with industry standard sunscreens, and consumer awareness will be key in changing the legislation that governs these products. 

“The limited protective scope of SPF and a false sense of security are contributing to a lack of effective measures against UV rays and skin deterioration.”

Second, why is this information relevant to you? In the last five years, as the beauty industry has experienced massive growth, sunscreen has become even more popular as a mechanism to prevent premature aging for those with light and dark complexions alike. In fact, preventing UV rays from harming the skin is truly the only way to slow the natural aging process. As a result of increased marketing, celebrity influencers, and cultural beauty standards, daily sunscreen use is more popular than ever. While this shift in grooming habits is undoubtedly a good thing, for reasons discussed above, choosing the right brand and formula can be paramount to future health outcomes and cancer rates. In the following section, I will assess three of the most popular sunscreen products in the United Kingdom, according to the EWG’s standards, and recommend two alternatives. The EWG’s rating system contrasts the potential harm of ingredients with SPF protection in order to derive a product score between 1 and 10; 1 being the best possible product and 10 being the most harmful. 

Number One: CeraVe Facial Moisturising Lotion, SPF 30

CeraVe has long been valued as a skincare giant, both for its simple ingredients and sensitive skin-friendly formulas. However, its most popular sunscreen product, a light lotion designed for daily morning use, scores fairly low according to EWG standards. Not only does it contain homosalate at 10%, but its SPF protection against UV-A rays is also extremely minimal. Overall, this product garners a cumulative score of 4—pretty ineffective, but not horribly toxic. 

Image credit: Unsplash

Number Two: La Roche-Posay Anthelios 60 Cooling Water Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 60

Another industry giant, La Roche-Posay, benefits from the French reputation and is a top sunscreen seller. Unfortunately, the extremely high SPF value is likely to trick users into thinking they’re well protected against all UV rays, and the formula contains oxybenzone at 3.9%, a chemical linked repeatedly to endocrine disruption and allergic reactions. Sadly, this fan favourite lands with an abysmal score of 7—avoid at all costs. 

Number Three: Murad Environmental Shield City Skin Age Defense Mineral Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 50

For our final industry contender we have Murad, a high-end skincare brand but, unfortunately in this case, the high price tag does not buy a better product. Although Murad does have some better scoring skincare products, this formula was chosen specifically for the marketing. Not only does the brand suggest their product slows aging and limits the effects of environmental factors, but they also indicate their formula has natural “mineral” ingredients. This could not be further from the truth—the natural mineral content is minimal and in fact the primary active ingredient, Retinyl Palmitate (RP), has been linked to reproductive disruption and some cancers. RP sits next to other toxic chemicals in the ingredient list, including oxybenzone and homosalate. Ultimately, the product scores a solid 7—stay away! 

Image credit: Unsplash

Ready for some good news? There are better options! The EWG’s website lists hundreds of strong scoring brands and formulas, here are a couple. The two products selected here are designed for everyone, and purport that they will not leave a whitecast on darker complexions. 

Number Four: 100% Pure Tomato Lycopene Moisturiser, SPF 20

This product utilises the natural effects of Lycopene to aid in the protection against all forms of UV rays, for half the price of Murad’s listing. Furthermore, the primary active ingredients zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are especially robust in the face of harsh UV rays and pose limited threats to hormone balance and bioaccumulation. Finally, there’s not a trace of oxybenzone or homosalate in the ingredient list, and the SPF level remains responsibly low. Overall, this product has secured a solid, near perfect, score of 2. 

Number Five: AKT Therapy Elemental Sun Balm, SPF 30

Our last product is arguably the best, relying on the proven effectiveness of zinc oxide as one of only six ingredients. Furthermore, the honest SPF rating keeps consumers safe and protected against all forms of UV rays. Ultimately, this product has earned a number 1 score compared to all other formulas and is a great option for those searching for a clean and powerful sunscreen. 

Reconciling my secular and spiritual mindfulness practice

Image credit: Unsplash

I have always been interested in meditation and saw it as a cool practice I could try and learn. When I was first introduced to the concept of mindfulness in 2015, I did what any nerdy graduate student would with a new topic—I took a deep dive and found out as much as I could. Jon Kabat-Zinn defines mindfulness as “the awareness that arises from paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment and non-judgmentally.” This is the most common way mindfulness has been understood in the modern era and it informs the popular practice of today. I started reading all the journal articles I could access and began using free apps and online videos as guides to develop my own practice. I felt like I understood what mindfulness was. It was what I was always talking about, and I practiced it each day, for a few minutes at a time, as regularly as I could. 

Then in 2016 I encountered Hitendra Solanki—a mindfulness instructor and a former humanitarian aid worker, currently teaching at London South Bank University. At the time, Hitendra—or Hiten as he likes to be called—was visiting my university in the Philippines and gave my class an introduction to mindfulness. He covered a lot that I already knew, including aspects of theory and evidence, and I felt that my understanding of mindfulness was validated then and there. But he went further than that. We were also told about its roots in Buddhist religion and spiritual traditions. He defined it not as a technique but as a practice: it was not just a way of doing meditation but a way of being mindful even beyond it. The guided meditation sessions just help to maintain and integrate the practice into everyday life.  

As knowledgeable about mindfulness as I thought I was, I did not realise the depth the tradition of mindfulness had. I was humbled by my ignorance, but I knew I wanted to know more. I wanted to practice the way it was intended. I decided to keep in touch with Hiten after that class. As he continued to mentor me, I learned about both the science and the roots of the mindfulness tradition in the reflections of Jon Kabat-Zinn, Ellen Langer, Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh, and many others who have embraced this practice.

With this in mind I began to wonder: is the mindfulness that has become so popular—the one marketed on apps, online courses, and Tiktok clips to make us feel better—the wrong way of practicing mindfulness? 

Practice vs Practice 

Practice in the secular tradition often refers to habit formation. Habits of awareness and presence can be developed through frequent and consistent practice, resulting in a level of mastery and familiarity. So, it follows that obtaining mastery and familiarity in the practice of mindfulness will involve regular meditation with a predictable schedule. 

“Practicing mindfulness means being mindful outside of your scheduled meditations. It involves living a life guided by the core tenets and values which mindfulness promotes and allowing it to shape you and your surroundings.”

But with mindfulness that is more deeply rooted in spirituality, there is a broader view of practice—it is a way of being. Practicing mindfulness means being mindful outside of your scheduled meditations. It involves living a life guided by the core tenets and values which mindfulness promotes and allowing it to shape you and your surroundings. Yes, maintaining specific habits and behaviours are still important, but it is not just about these methodised processes—there is that unwavering connection to the philosophy that forms the foundation of mindfulness. 

What distinguishes the two descriptions of practice is a difference in purpose. Mindfulness was not developed to make you feel good through the meditations. Meditation is only part of what constitutes the practice—mindfulness is intended to bring our attention back to the present moment in a loving and compassionate way. Mindfulness allows us to see things from a perspective of kindness, and accept them for what they really are—including those unpleasant feelings, sensations, thoughts, and experiences.

Image credit: Unsplash

Widening Differences

The spiritual foundation of mindfulness remains largely unchanged: mindfulness remains rooted in different spiritual traditions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as in spiritual practices across Asia.

However, a more secularised form of mindfulness has evolved rapidly over the past decades. It has grown from Jon Kabat-Zinn’s introduction of mindfulness and his subsequent mindfulness-based stress reduction programme to different modalities, formats, and techniques that take mindfulness as a base. At the time of writing this article, there are thousands of mindfulness apps and programmes available online. The mindfulness industry is currently worth billions of dollars with Headspace and Calm—two of the most successful mindfulness apps—leading the way. Mindfulness has been adapted to every medium you can think of, making it widely accessible to anyone who would like to use it. But this has turned the practice of mindfulness into a tool—a very popular tool—and one perhaps very distant from the values the concept was intended to propagate. One powerful critique of the current brand of mindfulness comes from Jon Kabat-Zinn himself, lamenting how mindfulness as a trend has led to empty forms of practice that are contrary to what mindfulness really is.

An article in Psychology Today by Dr. Jason Linder captures this well. Mindfulness has been seen, offered, and promoted as a solution to reducing individual suffering and as a means to feel good. Feeling good, or feeling happier, is certainly possible through mindfulness—but this was not its original goal or focus. Sometimes, mindfulness can make you feel uncomfortable. The uncomfortable can teach us things about ourselves, others, and the world around us that staying where it is comfortable can’t. Turning towards discomfort is hard work but as with any practice within mindfulness, we approach it with loving-kindness and compassion.    

“Feeling good, or feeling happier, is certainly possible through mindfulness—but this was not its original goal or focus.”

It is undeniable that mindfulness has been incredibly beneficial to many individuals’ mental health and well-being. But it is also undeniable that through attempts to make it more palatable to a global community, hesitant to adopt a foreign religious practice, it has lost some of its meaning. 

Image credit: Unsplash

Will it matter if your practice is secular and not spiritual? 

The answer depends on your purpose for practicing. If you are not seeking a spiritual practice then it is fine to take a secular approach. The way Hiten sees it is that if you are serious about maintaining your mindfulness practice and adopting its foundational values, such as loving-kindness and compassion, your practice will inevitably become spiritual. The connection to something beyond yourself is something you will naturally gravitate towards as long as you continue with your practice (whatever that practice may look like). 

Is there a wrong way of practicing mindfulness?  

Yes, there is—but just one. A practice without compassion is not mindfulness. The Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh tells us that mindfulness enables us to fully live each life by drawing our attention back to life. Whether your practice is secular or spiritual matters less, as long as you practice with compassion.  

Potential health benefits of companion animals

The feeling of coming home to an excited furry friend wagging its tail is unparalleled. Ask anyone with pets how their lives have been enriched and every single one will come up with a long and compelling list of benefits. It is perhaps due to the pandemic lockdowns and ensuing isolation that millions of people across the world have adopted pets over the last year. In the United Kingdom alone, nearly 3.2 million households welcomed pets into their homes. Given this current trend, it seems like a relevant time to explore the science behind the health benefits of companion animals.

Image credit: @thedoggozoey on Instagram

Mental health benefits

Pets can be cuddly, loving, and a great source of companionship. Dr. Gregory Fricchione observes, "We do best medically and emotionally when we feel securely attached to another, because we're mammals and that's the way we've evolved.” According to Fricchione, we are particularly comfortable with cats and dogs because they convey a feeling of unconditional love. 

“Having a pet during childhood and adolescence has a wide array of mental health benefits.”

A number of scientific studies provide evidence for the benefits of such human-animal companionship. Having a pet during childhood and adolescence has a wide array of mental health benefits ranging from improved self-esteem, reduced feelings of loneliness, increased social competence, and even an improvement in intellectual and cognitive abilities. Among the elderly, companion animals can improve quality of life and reduce symptoms of depression, anxiety, and behavioural and psychiatric symptoms of dementia. Having a pet, however, can also have negative effects on our mental health. While people living with mental health problems do experience the benefits outlined above, they are also exposed to additional risks, such as the psychological distress of losing a pet. 

Physical health benefits

Pets can also help with our physical health. Having a pet can encourage people to go outside and exercise; people with dogs, for example, walk more and engage in more physical activity than those without. In the case of certain diseases, there is some evidence to show that having a pet is associated with reduced severity and lower mortality: studies indicate, for example, that people with pets have a lower prevalence of systemic hypertension and lower adjusted cardiovascular mortality.

When should you perhaps think twice about getting a pet? 

While there are health benefits to having a pet, there are specific situations in which having one may not be advised. For people with mental health conditions, the distress of losing a pet can be significant; in times of crisis, this grief can exacerbate a mental health condition that they may already be struggling to manage. As for risks to physical health, people with weakened immune systems, and those undergoing cancer chemotherapy, ought to take precautions to avoid contracting zoonotic diseases—those transmissible between animals and humans. For pregnant women, the Centres for Disease Control advises against handling new or stray cats so as to avoid the risk of contracting toxoplasmosis, a parasite-borne illness that can lead to birth defects. 

For those not subject to such concerns, however, the benefits of a companion animal are compelling. If you are contemplating getting a cuddly, furry-tailed friend, and cannot resist those puppy dog eyes at the shelter, then do not worry, for science is on your side.